Shale Reservoirs Similar, yet so different

2010 3D Seismic Symposium

Geography of Talks - 16th Annual 3-D Seismic Symposium Tuesday March 16th, 2010 Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists & Denver Geophysical Society 1 12 7

10 2

11 4 8 9

5 6
Geography of Talks - 16th Annual 3-D Seismic Symposium - Tuesday March 16th, 2010 1) Shale Plays Overview: Murray Roth 2) Williston Basin - Depth Imaging Workflow: Chris Besler & Greg Johnson 3) Eagle Ford Shale: Galen Treadgold & Steve Sinclair 4) Marcellus Shale: Jim Morris 5) Woodford Shale: Richard Parkes 6) Haynesville Shale: Pete Smith 7) World: Bob Peebler 8) Southern Uinta Dakota: Bill Keach 9) Piceance Basin - Winter Acquisition: Mary Sue Purcell & DeWitt Morris 10) Eagle Sandstone -Tiger Ridge Field Montana: Tanya Inks 11) Tensleep Fractures - Teapot Dome: Doug Klepacki 12) Montney Shale - BC Canada: B.K. Torry & Kurt Wikel

3 from: Canadian NEB/Murray Roth

Total Gas/Producible

Source: NEB

1000 10 10000 100 1 Source: EIA World’s Largest Gas Fields South Pars Marcellus Haynesville Urengoy Yamburg Hassi R’Mel Shtokman Zapolyarn… Hugoton Groningen Bonavenko Medvezhye Montney North Pars Horn River Dauletaba… Karachag… Kish Orenburg Barnett Fayetteville Kharsavey Transform proprietary information Restricted Access Russian/FSU Other International North American Gas .

Utah Louisiana. Saskatchewan Black Warrior Basin. northeast BC Black Warrior Basin. Colorado. Alabama Western New York West central Alberta Maverick Basin. northeast British Columbia East Kentucky. Arkansas. Arkansas Bighorn and Powder River. Utah Eastern Kentucky Eastern Kentucky Montana Central Alberta. Ohio. New Mexico. Michigan Kansas. Nova Scotia Williston Basin. Quebec West central Alberta. Arkansas West central Alberta. New Mexico San Juan Basin. northeast British Columbia Arkoma Basin. northeast British Columbia Arkoma Basin. Pennsylvania. Utah Arkoma Basin. Michigan Vermillion Basin. Colorado West central Alberta. Uinta Basin. Texas Michigan Basin. Texas Paradox Basin. West Virginia Maverick Basin. Ohio. Colorado. Wyoming Northeast British Columbia Illinois Basin. northeast B New York Appalachian Basin Southern Alberta Appalachian Basin New York. Texas Palo Duro Basin. Colorado Alberta. Alabama. Utah Part of Ohio Shale. Wyoming Fort Worth and Permian. Indiana Denver Basin.57 US/Canadian Shales – marcellus-shale. Ohio. Colorado. Oklahoma Alberta. California Alberta. Utah Central Utah New York.us FORMATION Antrim Shale Baxter Shale Barnett Shale Bend Shale Cane Creek Shale Caney Shale Chattanooga Shale Chimney Rock Shale Cleveland Shale Clinton Shale Cody Shale Colorado Shale Conasauga Shale Dunkirk Shale Duvernay Shale Eagleford Shale Ellsworth Shale Excello Shale Exshaw Shale Fayetteville Shale Fernie Shale Floyd/Neal Shale Frederick Brook Shale Gammon Shale Gordondale Shale Gothic Shale Green River Shale Haynesville/Bossier Sh Horn River Shale Horton Bluff Shale PERIOD Late Devonian Late Cretaceous Mississippian Pennsylvanian Pennsylvanian Mississippian Late Devonian Pennsylvanian Devonian Early Silurian Cretaceous Cretaceous Middle Cambrian Upper Devonian Late Devonian Late Cretaceous Late Devonian Pennsylvanian Devonian-Mississippian Mississippian Jurassic Late Mississippian Mississippian Late Cretaceous Early Jurassic Pennsylvanian Eocene Late Jurassic Middle Devonian Early Mississippian LOCATION Michigan Basin. California Santa Maria Basin. West Virginia . Texas West Texas Raton Basin. Oklahoma Alabama. Montana Northeast British Columbia Paradox Basin. northeast British Columbia Oklahoma. Colorado. Texas FORMATION Hovenweep Shale Huron Shale PERIOD Pennsylvanian Devonian LOCATION Paradox Basin. east Kentucky. Illinois. Kentucky. east Texas Northeast British Columbia Nova Scotia Manning Canyon Shale Marcellus Shale McClure Shale Monterey Shale Montney-Doig Shale Moorefield Shale Mowry Shale Muskwa Shale New Albany Shale Niobrara Shale Nordegg/Gordondale Sh Ohio Shale Pearsall Shale Percha Shale Pierre Shale Poker Chip Shale Queenston Shale Rhinestreet Shale Second White Speckled Sunbury Shale Utica Shale Wilrich/Buckinghorse/ Garbutt/Moosebar Woodford Shale Mississippian Devonian Miocene Miocene Triassic Mississippian Cretaceous Late Devonian DevonianMississippian Late Cretaceous Late Jurassic Devonian Cretaceous Devonian-Miss Cretaceous Jurassic Ordovician Devonian Late Cretaceous Mississippian Ordovician Early Cretaceous Late Dev-Early Miss Klua/Evie Shale Lewis Shale Mancos Shale Middle Devonian Late Cretaceous Cretaceous Northeast British Columbia Colorado. Miss New Brunswick. Virginia. WV San Joaquin Basin. Utah Colorado. Tennessee Paradox Basin.

Economics vs Resources vs Maturity Eagle Ford UBS 2008 .

Texas North Dakota.us . Texas Maverick Basin. Texas Louisiana.7 US/Canadian “Shales” for Today FORMATION Barnett Shale Eagleford Shale Haynesville/Bossier Shale Horn River Shale Marcellus Shale Woodford Shale Williston/Bakken Shale (Oil) PERIOD Mississippian Late Cretaceous Late Jurassic Middle Devonian Devonian Late Devonian-Early Mississippian Upper Devonian LOCATION Fort Worth and Permian basins. West Virginia Oklahoma. east Texas Northeast British Columbia New York. Saskatchewan marcellus-shale. Montana. Ohio. Pennsylvania.

Barnett .

Barnett Map Max Stress .

Barnett Setting Source: USGS .

Barnett Stratigraphy Source: USGS .

65 4000 200 2 4.5 6 250 0.8 2.526 45 35 300’ Courtesy: Devon .Barnett Details Geologic Age Lithology Total Area Size (sq mi) Total Gas (tcf) GIP (bcf/sq mi) Producable Gas (tcf) Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Hor Well Cost ($M) Average EUR Pressure (psi) Temperature (F) Ro TOC (%) Porosity (%) Matrix Permeability (nD) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) Clay Content (%) Adsorbed Gas (%) Mississippian Siliceous Mudstone 50000 327 150 50 7500 300 2.

Well Crossplot/Analysis Courtesy: Devon .

Eagle Ford .

Eagle Ford Map Oil Dry Gas .

Eagle Ford Setting Source: Wilcox Exploration .

Eagle Ford Stratigraphy Source: USGS .

5 5200 335 1.8 5.5 4.Eagle Ford Details Geologic Age Lithology Total Area Size (sq mi) Total Gas (tcf) GIP (bcf/sq mi) Producable Gas (tcf) Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Cretaceous bituminous shales 1350 84 200 9 11500 250 4.5 11 1100 0.65 8 20 250’ Hor Well Cost ($M) Average EUR Pressure (psi) Temperature (F) Ro TOC (%) Porosity (%) Matrix Permeability (nD) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) Clay Content (%) Source: USGS Adsorbed Gas (%) .

Haynesville .

Haynesville Map .

Haynesville Setting Source: USGS .

Haynesville Stratigraphy Source: USGS .

0 6.Haynesville Details Geologic Age Lithology Total Area Size (sq mi) Total Gas (tcf) GIP (bcf/sq mi) Producable Gas (tcf) Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Hor Well Cost ($M) Average EUR Pressure (psi) Temperature (F) Ro TOC (%) Porosity (%) Matrix Permeability (nD) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) Clay Content (%) Adsorbed Gas (%) Upper Jurassic Argillaceous/Calcareous 9000 717 175 251 12000 225 7.5 8500 340 2.2 3 10 658 0.95 27 18 200’ .

Horn River .

Horn River Map .

Horn River Setting .

Horn River Stratigraphy Source: GSC/NEB of Canada .

5 3 3 230 0.0 7.5 4800 160 2.6 30 34 75’ Lithology Total Area Size (sq mi) Total Gas (tcf) GIP (bcf/sq mi) Producable Gas (tcf) Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Hor Well Cost ($M) Average EUR Pressure (psi) Temperature (F) Ro TOC (%) Porosity (%) 200’ Matrix Permeability (nD) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) Clay Content (%) Adsorbed Gas (%) Source: BC Ministry of Energy .Horn River Details Geologic Age Upper Devonian Brittle Shale 5000 370 250 47 8800 450 7.

Marcellus .

Marcellus Map Source: DOE .

Marcellus Map Marcellus Source: Cabot Presentation .

Marcellus Setting .

Marcellus Stratigraphy Source: USGS .

25 3.5 3.25 8 1000 0.Marcellus Details Geologic Age Lithology Total Area Size (sq mi) Total Gas (tcf) GIP (bcf/sq mi) Producable Gas (tcf) Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Hor Well Cost ($M) Average EUR Pressure (psi) Temperature (F) Middle Devonian Argillaceous Mudstone 95000 1500 200 356 7000 350 3.75 4000 130 1.4 50 50 300’ Ro TOC (%) Porosity (%) Matrix Permeability (nD) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) Clay Content (%) Source: WVGES Adsorbed Gas (%) .

Marcellus Well Log Crossplot Source: WVGS .

Woodford .

Woodford Map Source: Oklahoma Geologic Society .

Woodford Setting Source: Kuykendall and Fritz .

Woodford Stratigraphy Source: Oklahoma Geologic Society .

4 8000 180 5 3.Woodford Details Geologic Age Lithology Total Area Size (sq mi) Total Gas (tcf) GIP (bcf/sq mi) Producable Gas (tcf) Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Hor Well Cost ($M) Average EUR Pressure (psi) Temperature (F) Ro TOC (%) Porosity (%) Matrix Permeability (nD) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) Clay Content (%) Adsorbed Gas (%) Upper Devonian Black shale 11000 23 70 11.5 7 6 500 0.7 30 46 150’ Source: Newfield Presentation .8 3267 145 1.

Williston/Bakken .

Williston/Bakken Map Sanish/Parshall Source: USGS .

Williston/Bakken Setting Source: USGS .

Williston/Bakken Stratigraphy Sanish Source: AAPG .

GR RES GR DEN Lodgepole 8150 Williston/Bakken Details Geologic Age Lithology Upper Dev/Lower Miss Sandstone/Siltstone/Carb 200000 945.5 1.29654782 20.414827391 5600 140 0.65647991 10000 150 5.5 5 0 Total Area Size (sq mi) Total Gas (tcf) GIP (bcf/sq mi) U Bkkn Shale Middle Bakken 8200 8200 Producable Gas (tcf) Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Hor Well Cost ($M) Average EUR Pressure (psi) Temperature (F) Ro TOC (%) Porosity (%) Matrix Permeability (nD) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) Clay Content (%) 120’ L Bkkn Shale 8250 Sanish 8300 8300 Adsorbed Gas (%) Source: Anon .9 10 5 10000 0.1046972 28.

Horizontal Well Microseismic .

Stimulated Reservoir Volume .

Shale Comparisons .

Gas in Place per Section Source: NEB .

GIP Rank by Basin Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford Bakken .

Well Depth by Basin Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford Bakken .

Thickness by Basin Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford Bakken .

Geologic Age by Basin Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford Bakken .

Shale Crossplots

GIP versus Zone Thickness
0.842

Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford Bakken

Well Measurements

GIP versus TOC -0.349 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford .

GIP versus Porosity 0.637 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford .

679 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford .GIP versus Permeability 0.

562 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford .GIP versus Temperature 0.

404 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford Bakken .GIP versus Ro 0.

GIP versus Pressure Gradient 0.312 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford .

435 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford .GIP versus Adsorbed Gas -0.

229 Marcellus Eagle Ford Haynesville Horn River Barnett Utica Woodford .GIP versus Silica/Calcite/Carb -0.

562 -.679 .404 .What matters most… Property Thickness Permeability Porosity Temperature Adsorbed Gas Vitrinite Reflectance Correlation .435 .637 .842 .

2 and 1.Similar… • Most shale basins fall in the DevonianMississippian fairway • Economic shale reservoirs range between 150-450 feet • Devonian-Mississippian shale reservoir wells average 7000-10.000’ • Commercial shale basins generally range between 0.1 microD • Shale plays are generally gas-focused • Shale plays generally have a single economic target .

Eagle Ford) to other features like karst collapse chimneys (Barnett) • Some shale plays have multiple. Haynesville) • Some of the best shale gas basins have deeper well depths of 10. shale plays are being developed as joint gas/oil assets (Barnett.Yet so different… • Some of the best shale gas basins are Mesozoic and lie on the younger side of major thrust belts (Eagle Ford. Haynesville) • Increasingly. Marcellus. permeability and porosity drive gas-in-place differences between shale gas plays . adjacent levels economic for development (Bakken) • Differences in thickness.000-13.000’ (Eagle Ford. Eagle Ford) • Shale plays range from relatively flat with minimal faulting (Haynesville) to highly faulted and structural (Woodford.

and more • Thanks to Michael Roth and Transform Software and Services • Electronic version of abstract available on www. BCEM. WVGS. NEB.transformsw. CGGVeritas and Global Geophysical Services • Many sources were used for data in this study.com . Oil and Gas Journal. GSC.Acknowledgements • Huge thanks to anonymous data donors and bp. American Oil and Gas Reporter. Devon.com • Contact me for a list of references or questions: murray@transformsw. Hart’s Unconventional Gas Center. including USGS.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful